Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nasa'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. I just read an interesting article on Ars Technica about whether a rescue mission could have been mounted if the critical damage to Columbia had been recognized before reentry. The article is based primarily on an appendix to the Columbia Accident Investigation Report. Reading it brought to mind the movie Marooned and the dilemma of risking additional personnel to attempt a rescue. Thanks to eight months of KSP, I have a much more intuitive understanding of the constraints imposed by orbital physics.
  2. M teacher gave me this he knew how much I like space. Erg it won't show the picture
  3. NASA has released a huge amount of new 3D models: http://nasa3d.arc.nasa.gov/ I'm speechless...
  4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobotic_Technology Would NASA be interested in buying instrument payload slots from Planetary Space Science Corporations like Astrobiotic Technology? Astrobiotic is a competitor for the Google Lunar XPrize planning to build probes to land on the Moon, and selling payload capacity to customers ($1.8-2 Million/kg of payload, depending on if the payload is attached to a rover or lander. Considering the total capacity of one lunar lander (w/o a rover) would be 210 kg of total science equipment payload (to be launched on a Falcon 9- these landers near the Falcon 9's max capacity to the lunar surface) 210 kg of instrument space would cost about $378 Million. Of course, the instruments must be bought separately from elsewhere, so the total cost would be near the $Five-hundred Million Discovery Mission cost cap. Would it be worth it, and could something like this be financed?
  5. http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/ Congress has provided Fifty-Five Million to develop a Habitat Module for deep-space Orion/SLS expeditions- a module which would be tested in Cis-lunar space, becoming the 'Cis-Lunar Space station' that was one of the primary contenders for a Orion/SLS mission. In other words, NASA is actually finally working on a payload for SLS/Orion. However, one concern is if this funding would survive the 2016 elections and actually lead to a Deep Space HAB. Call the NextSTEP Contracts, NASA has given contracts to Bigelow, Boeing, LockMart, and OrbitalATK for study HAB designs, and for Dynetics, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Orbital Technologies (not the same corporation as Orbital Sciences) to develop support systems for these HABs. Each company has been given $1 Million each to do so, and eventually, this will lead to a prototype module (built by the company selected to build the module), which is supposed to be completed by 2018. LockMart has proposed a Thales Alenia Space-Subcontracted module, based off Thales' ISS modules (as the HAB module), and LockMart's Orion Spacecraft and its planetary probes (to build the service module.) Bigelow has proposed to use their BA-330 as a deep-space HAB. OrbitalATK has proposed to use a Cynus-Derived modular HAB, using Cygnus Spacecraft with stretched pressurized sections (which also may be attached to node modules to make modular HABs.) Boeing's is a solid (non-inflatable) HAB, but has revealed nearly nothing on what it will be like. Typical Boeing. NextSTEP will likely be accelerated due to the extra funding provided, and the requirement to produce a prototype module in 2 years. NASA may also build the HAB modules internally, instead of giving it out to commercial companies, though this seems unlikely. Who should build the HAB module? Will this survive to become an early SLS/Orion payload?
  6. What if, say, SLS has a launch failure of the SLS, and the pad comes crashing down to LC-39B. Would that validate the construction of a 2nd SLS pad north of LC-39B (LC-39C) designed in the same way as LC-39B, similar to how a pad explosion at LC-36A prompted NASA to complete LC-36B. Giving SLS a backup pad has been proposed for LC-39A (before it was leased out to SpaceX), and since SLS uses a clean pad infrastructure, NASA could lease it out to ULA for Atlas V/Vulcan's second/backup pad (as was proposed for both LC-39B and A).
  7. https://software.nasa.gov/ A page on NASA's site with a bunch of software that can be requested and downloaded. Go nuts!
  8. Scenario: NASA gets 1 Billion Dollars of money every five years (or $200 Million per year)to spend on any of the 3 planetary exploration programs (it might be realistic). NASA currently has 3 of these programs: Discovery ($450 Million cost cap), New Frontiers ($1 Billion Dollar cost cap), and Flagship (generally $2 Billion per mission). Which one would you fund? (Or would you make a new planetary exploration program, with a specific goal? [Remember that such new program would need approval by the gov't, and would need a specific goal, like test technologies (New Millemium), or explore Mars (Mars Scout).] Discovery Program: -$450 Million cost cap per mission, used for smaller, more focused missions. -Generally limited to the inner solar system + the Asteroid Belt (due to practicality, and potential budget overruns) -Examples of potential future missions include: NEO Scout, VERITAS, and Phyche. -Using the obtained money, can fund 1-2 extra missions every 3-4 years (current rate of missions, however, mission pace expected to increase, within the coming years, with either 2 future missions being selected this time around, or the next call for missions being in 2017) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Program New Frontiers Program: -$1 Billion cost cap per mission, used for medium-class, missions. -Able to go anywhere in the Solar System. -Examples of potential future missions include: Lunar Surface Polar Sample Return, Comet Nucleus Sample Return, and Venus In-Situ Explorer. -Using the obtained money, can fund 1 extra missions every 5 years (however, New Frontiers has been only sporatically putting out calls for mission proposals, so spending the money here will be more like fully funding this program- with a little extra left over) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontiers_program Flagship Program: -Generally $2 Billion in cost, used for high-cost missions designed to get as much data as possible from a single location. -Able to go anywhere in the Solar System, with more designed to go to the Outer Solar System. -Examples of Current Missions include: Solar Probe Plus, Curiosity. -Examples of Planned Future Missions include: Mars 2020, Europa Clipper -Using the obtained money, could accelerate existing flagship missions planned (Mars 2020, Europa Clipper) or use the money on preliminary work and instrument funding for Uranus Orbiter, for launch after Europa Clipper, once the money is freed up from the current flagship missions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_Program
  9. http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/7883/20151213/nasa-out-iss.htm http://www.fastcompany.com/3054332/fast-feed/nasa-were-leaving-the-space-station-to-the-private-sector NASA want to pull out support for ISS asap and wish to leave the space station bussiness to the private sector. Good or bad?
  10. Now this is a super computer... http://www.pcworld.com/article/3013214/hardware/nasa-google-reveal-quantum-computing-leap.html
  11. KSP: Atlas V 401 launching the OA-4 Cygnus (Cygnus CRS-4) While I was watching the countdown for the Atlas V 401 rocket that will launch the OA-4 Cygnus spacecraft to deliver supplies to the International Space Station, I got an idea to do the mission in KSP, using the Launchers Pack Atlas V and Raidernick's enhanced Cygnus. Of course, there are no weather issues that require delays to the launch in KSP. Cygnus was successfully delivered to a 100km circular orbit by the Centaur upper stage. Enjoy!
  12. This thread is a split from this thread (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93907-CCiCap-was-announced-SpaceX-and-Boeing-were-selected/) that is just to discuss the SNC challenge to the CCtCap Program and its implications and effects. Starting off with some new news... http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VCzrZ_ldWSo so Nibb and Kryten you were right, it will delay the program the only loophole suggested by that article is which is more a loophole that SpaceX is more likely to take than Boeing Also the OFFICIAL GAO dockett link is http://www.gao.gov/docket/B-410485.1 The Attorney is Eric M. Ransom
  13. It's happening. We've been waiting for this event for years now, and soon everyone (along with SpaceX, Boeing, & Sierra Nevada) will know who will be flying the first U.S. astronauts from U.S. soil since the Space Shuttle retired in 2011, on-board USCV-1 to the ISS, tentatively scheduled to make its first flight in 2017. Live Updates: [4:08 PM 16 September] BOEING AND SPACEX ARE THE WINNERS! [9:10AM 16 September] Lurio, you must be relieved! Stephen Clark via Twitter: "NASA: "Major announcement today about astronaut transport to the International Space Station." 4pm presser at KSC. Buckle your seat belts." [12:41AM 16 September]: Andy Pasztor has published another article on the WSJ, titled: "Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos's Startup Is Part of Bid to Deliver Astronauts". Read the full article here. [9:16 PM EST]: Mr. Lurio to the rescue again... "Latest from elsewhere: WSJ/Pastor item is wrong. Conclusion: We won't know it til we know it, so take stress tab of your choice.". Jeff Foust has also retweeted this. [9:14 PM EST]: Cnet is regurgitating Wall Street Journal's claims that Boeing is to win one of the spots in an article titled: "Boeing said to win NASA space taxi contract". Everyone should be aware that this is complete speculation. There is no evidence to support any of this information. [3:31PM]: "Yet another item: Supposedly someone saw a poster just delivered KSC re CCtCap - included SNC/SpaceX, not Boeing. But I advise caution." Link to Tweet. [3:27PM]: Charles A. Lurio again... "This just in from another re CCtCap: Award tomorrow between 10-11am EDT." [3:06PM]: Charles A. Lurio on Twitter advising that companies will be informed of CCtCap results tomorrow morning, with public announcements following shortly after! All times are in EST BackgroundWith the Retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA had to pay the Russians for seats on the Soyuz to ferry Astronauts to the ISS. NASA did not like this and started 2 different competitions to resupply and recrew the station. They are known as CCDev and CCtCap respectively. CCDev was the easier of the two and 2 companies made designs and won contracts, SpaceX with the Dragon and Orbital Sciences with Cygnus. The original idea was for CCDev to be a stepping stone for CCtCap, but it did not work out. CCtCap is Commercial Crew. in the beginning there were 5 designs with 4 capsules. They were SpaceX with the Dragon on a Falcon 9, Sierra Nevada Corp with DreamChaser on Atlas 5, Boeing with CST100 on Atlas 5, Blue Origin with New Sheppard on Undecided, and ATK with a CST100 on Liberty (think Aires 1). After the first round money was awarded to Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada Corp to continue developing their designs. Boeing got the most money, followed by SpaceX and then SNC. Instead of a lump sum, the awards are parsed out based on milestones. This announcement is the end of the second phase. At this point, NASA has the money for 1.5 Contracts and this announcement is for who gets the big contract to actually carry astronauts to the ISS. Current Speculation is that Boeing has the strongest case because they have completed 100% of their milestones, with SpaceX in second with something like 80%. The main difference is that SpaceX has proven technology that has flown in the last decade, last time a Boeing Capsule flew was the apollo capsule. Tomorrow is the BIG day when the three lean whether or not they will get money to continue building their craft. SpaceX has already said that if they do not get selected they will continue to build the Dragon V2, it will just take longer. AFAIK there has been no announcements from SNC or Boeing on what happens if they do not get selected. for more info on the designs CST 100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100 Dragon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_V2 DreamChaser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser also reddit is a great place for more info and is where I am getting the updates from https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2gi43x/rspacex_nasa_cctcap_downselect_official/
  14. Inspired by Nova's images of the new Mars like plannet and some posts refering to the August 9th Mars Curiosity landing I decided to branch from the KSP fantasy world and check out some NASA videos on the subject. Now for all of your viewing pleasure I present the most Kerbal thing NASA has ever attempted. The Mars Curiosity Rover: - $2.5 billion US dollars - 8 month transit time - Powered by plutonium - The size of a mini cooper - 4 Stage untested powered descent with a "Sky Crane" to lower the rover the last 21 feet. (I repeat "Untested") - Oh and one more thing.... The landing is done completely in the dark under computer control. In short one of the coolest things NASA has created since Tang. I hope this inspires some new part designs from the community. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=146903741
×
×
  • Create New...